Skip to main content
Irvin Rakhlin
Avvo
Pro

Irvin Rakhlin’s Legal Cases

8 total

  • Commonwealth v. M.M.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Outcome:
    Motion to Suppress Allowed
    Description:
    Successfully argued Motion to Suppress a Firearm in a Division of the Boston Municipal Court. Client was charged with possession of a loaded firearm after he was stopped by officers conducting surveillance for possible drug transactions. Commonwealth could not show sufficient probable cause for the stop after thorough cross examination.
  • Commonwealth v. L.P.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty Verdict
    Description:
    Not Guilty verdict in an Operating Under the Influence case in a Division of the Boston Municipal Court. Client was charged with Operating Under the Influence after he was stopped by police officers near his home after observations of alleged aberrant behavior. Commonwealth's reliance on eye witnesses and police observations proved inadequate to convict after cross examination.
  • Commonwealth v. R.J.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jul 07, 2010
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty Verdict
    Description:
    Not Guilty verdict in a Domestic Assault and Battery case in a Division of the Boston Municipal Court. Client was charged with punching and stomping his girlfriend after she called the police from their shared apartment. Commonwealth called the girlfriend to testify, however the jury did not credit her story after cross examination.
  • Commonwealth v. E.C.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Feb 09, 2011
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty Verdict
    Description:
    Not Guilty verdict in a Leaving the Scene of a Personal Injury case in a Division of the Boston Municipal Court. Client was charged with striking a woman with his car and then leaving the scene without stopping to identify himself. Commonwealth presented two eye witnesses in an attempt to secure a conviction, however the jury returned a not guilty verdict.
  • Commmonwealth v. A.G.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jan 09, 2013
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty Verdict
    Description:
    A 40 year old man was charged with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon on his 76 year old female landlord. The alleged victim was a very sympathetic witness and the Commonwealth was proceeding with the case as if her story was completely accurate. However, the physical evidence and her personal bias against the defendant undercut her credibility when highlighted on cross-examination.
  • Com v. R.R.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty Verdict
    Description:
    Client charged with a first offense OUI (Operating Under the Influence). The evidence was a 0.14 Breathalyzer result (almost 2x the legal limit) and some damaging field sobriety tests. Through pre-trial and trial motions Attorney Rakhlin was able to get the evidence excluded and the jury returned a Not Guilty Verdict after a half hour of deliberations.
  • Com v. A.A.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Dec 16, 2014
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty Verdict
    Description:
    Client was charged with Domestic Assault and Battery in violation of M.G.L. Ch 265 Sec 13M. The Commonwealth presented the jury with an independent witness to the alleged event. Through skillful cross examination Attorney Rakhlin was able to secure a NOT GUILTY verdict after a jury deliberation of 8 minutes.
  • Com v. S.H.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jun 09, 2015
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty Verdict
    Description:
    Client was charged with a hand to hand drug sale to an undercover officer in a public park. The charge carried a minimum jail sentence of 2 years, with the strong possibility of a longer sentence. Attorney Rakhlin applied the latest case law to keep some damaging information out of evidence, and then cross examined the officers and the drug lab chemist in such a way to create reasonable doubt for a NOT GUILTY verdict.